Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

655 results for “condonation of delay”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,325 Chennai3,129 Mumbai3,043 Kolkata1,993 Pune1,739 Ahmedabad1,413 Bangalore1,240 Hyderabad1,133 Patna1,037 Jaipur958 Chandigarh677 Cochin655 Cuttack600 Indore555 Surat551 Nagpur548 Visakhapatnam431 Raipur424 Amritsar402 Lucknow374 Rajkot359 Agra330 Panaji209 Dehradun141 Guwahati125 Jodhpur113 Ranchi96 Jabalpur90 Allahabad62 Varanasi26

Key Topics

Addition to Income41 Section 143(3)40 Section 80P37 Condonation of Delay34 Section 25033 Deduction29 Section 14725 Section 14823 Cash Deposit23

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

delay, one should be very cautious while condoning the delay. The delay of 2491 cannot be condoned

M/S KADIRUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

Showing 1–20 of 655 · Page 1 of 33

...

Section 80P(2)(a)19

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 104/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kadirur Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Kadirur, Officer, Thalassery, Ward – 2, Kannur, Kannur. Kerala – 670 642. Vs. Pan: Aaffk6859E Appellant Respondent : Shri Arun Raj .S, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri Arun Raj .S

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 51Section 80p

condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 761/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 763/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 762/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 764/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathews, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

CONDONATION OF DELAY The appellant company, while furnishing Appeal in Form No. 35 had sought condonation of delay

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR

Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condoned the said delay vide its order dated 19/05/2023. Having the Ld.PCIT had condoned the said delay

LAURA ANN,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA

delay, should have called for a condonation petition and condoned the delay, in the interest of natural

CHAKRABARTI EYE CARE CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 850/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

delay in filing the appeals deserves to be condoned. Accordingly the delay is condoned. Since the CIT(A) has not decided

CHAKRABARTI EYE CARE CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 852/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

delay in filing the appeals deserves to be condoned. Accordingly the delay is condoned. Since the CIT(A) has not decided

CHAKRABARTI EYE CARE CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 851/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

delay in filing the appeals deserves to be condoned. Accordingly the delay is condoned. Since the CIT(A) has not decided

M/S ROYAL INDIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED,KOCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 878/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Condone the delay in filing the Appeal petition.” 5. However, the CIT(A) did not condone the delay

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2023[2015-16 QTR 2]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeals despite the application for condonation being

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 52/COCH/2023[2015-16 (QT1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeals despite the application for condonation being

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/COCH/2023[2015-16 (Qurt-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeals despite the application for condonation being

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 55/COCH/2023[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeals despite the application for condonation being

THE VELLATHOOVAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 848/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

delay of 1268 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

condoned more than six hundred days delay. 3.8 In view of the above, we are condoning the delay